Marquette and I have recently noticed that not all members of the SC have been voting on the bills, yet they are passing. This is really annoying me because I sometimes do not get a chance to express my opinion and possibly change other's votes.

I propose that:

!) To ensure that all SC nations receive adequate time to debate and make final votes on the bill, that a voting period will be 72 hours after the posting time.

2) All nations must state that their vote is final. If they still want to be able to change their vote, they can state that it is an unfinalised vote.

3) If a nation votes, but forgets to state the type of vote before the end of the voting period, their vote will be counted as final.

Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?

Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.

is it possible to get more time?

Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.

Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?

Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.

is it possible to get more time?

Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.

How is it discriminatory? They were specifying that the President should replace the Founder on ending a vote.

Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?

Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.

is it possible to get more time?

Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.

How is it discriminatory? They were specifying that the President should replace the Founder on ending a vote.

The Founder is only granted de facto membership to the Security Council and the elected President is more superior than the Founder in the body. And also, in a 7 member body, a tie is impossible.

Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?

Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.

is it possible to get more time?

Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.

How is it discriminatory? They were specifying that the President should replace the Founder on ending a vote.

The Founder is only granted de facto membership to the Security Council and the elected President is more superior than the Founder in the body. And also, in a 7 member body, a tie is impossible.

If only six were to vote in a period of 72 hours, the President would break the tie.

We are voting AGAINST this proposal for the moment.As we already know, not all countries that are part of the Security Council are active.And, because of this inactivity, the timing of vote laws lengthen greatly.For some proposals that I have made ​​in the past legislatures, due to the inactivity of the members voting times have gone beyond two weeks.If this law is approved as it stands now, due to the inactivity of some members of the Security Council, the timing of voting would exceed the limit of 72 hours.So there is a real risk that the bills, which, however, have had some success among the active members of the Security Council, are rejected due to the inactivity of certain nations.I do not know if my explanation is clear.We therefore ask the Holy Patrician States to clarify this doubt.

United States of Europe wrote:We are voting AGAINST this proposal for the moment.As we already know, not all countries that are part of the Security Council are active.And, because of this inactivity, the timing of vote laws lengthen greatly.For some proposals that I have made ​​in the past legislatures, due to the inactivity of the members voting times have gone beyond two weeks.If this law is approved as it stands now, due to the inactivity of some members of the Security Council, the timing of voting would exceed the limit of 72 hours.So there is a real risk that the bills, which, however, have had some success among the active members of the Security Council, are rejected due to the inactivity of certain nations.I do not know if my explanation is clear.We therefore ask the Holy Patrician States to clarify this doubt.

Then only nations who are online very frequently should be elected into the Security Council. If you can't prioritize Nationstates when you are in the Security Council then you should not be in the SC to begin with. Just saying.

Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?

Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.

is it possible to get more time?

Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.

How is it discriminatory? They were specifying that the President should replace the Founder on ending a vote.

The Founder is only granted de facto membership to the Security Council and the elected President is more superior than the Founder in the body. And also, in a 7 member body, a tie is impossible.

If only six were to vote in a period of 72 hours, the President would break the tie.

Eurussia refutes this as there is no way the President could break the tie since the soul of this proposal is the 72 hours voting period. If there is a tie, in which you will never know until the 72 hour lapses, technically, a proposal hasn't passed. If HPS is saying that the President can break a tie after the 72 hour period, what if the President himself delays breaking the tie? The purpose of this proposal is definitely obsolete then.

And to remind the proponent, let us say, only 2 out of 7 members voted after the time lapses, and there is a tie. Assuming the President has broken it and made the proposal either passed or rejected, does this scenario mean that the 3 nations (including the tie breaking vote of the President) voted could pass a proposal?

Will the above scenario blatantly violate the more superior constitutional rule that a simple majority of ALL the members of the Security Council is necessary to pass a proposal into law?

Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?

Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.

is it possible to get more time?

Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.

How is it discriminatory? They were specifying that the President should replace the Founder on ending a vote.

The Founder is only granted de facto membership to the Security Council and the elected President is more superior than the Founder in the body. And also, in a 7 member body, a tie is impossible.

If only six were to vote in a period of 72 hours, the President would break the tie.

Eurussia refutes this as there is no way the President could break the tie since the soul of this proposal is the 72 hours voting period. If there is a tie, in which you will never know until the 72 hour lapses, technically, a proposal hasn't passed. If HPS is saying that the President can break a tie after the 72 hour period, what if the President himself delays breaking the tie? The purpose of this proposal is definitely obsolete then.

And to remind the proponent, let us say, only 2 out of 7 members voted after the time lapses, and there is a tie. Assuming the President has broken it and made the proposal either passed or rejected, does this scenario mean that the 3 nations (including the tie breaking vote of the President) voted could pass a proposal?

Will the above scenario blatantly violate the more superior constitutional rule that a simple majority of ALL the members of the Security Council is necessary to pass a proposal into law?

Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?

Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.

is it possible to get more time?

Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.

How is it discriminatory? They were specifying that the President should replace the Founder on ending a vote.

The Founder is only granted de facto membership to the Security Council and the elected President is more superior than the Founder in the body. And also, in a 7 member body, a tie is impossible.

If only six were to vote in a period of 72 hours, the President would break the tie.

Eurussia refutes this as there is no way the President could break the tie since the soul of this proposal is the 72 hours voting period. If there is a tie, in which you will never know until the 72 hour lapses, technically, a proposal hasn't passed. If HPS is saying that the President can break a tie after the 72 hour period, what if the President himself delays breaking the tie? The purpose of this proposal is definitely obsolete then.

And to remind the proponent, let us say, only 2 out of 7 members voted after the time lapses, and there is a tie. Assuming the President has broken it and made the proposal either passed or rejected, does this scenario mean that the 3 nations (including the tie breaking vote of the President) voted could pass a proposal?

Will the above scenario blatantly violate the more superior constitutional rule that a simple majority of ALL the members of the Security Council is necessary to pass a proposal into law?

Pretty much.

Eurussia, then, formally suggests HPS to simply rewrite the proposal into stating that all proposals must be voted within a 72 hour period or else automatically dismissed.

Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?

Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.

is it possible to get more time?

Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.

How is it discriminatory? They were specifying that the President should replace the Founder on ending a vote.

The Founder is only granted de facto membership to the Security Council and the elected President is more superior than the Founder in the body. And also, in a 7 member body, a tie is impossible.

If only six were to vote in a period of 72 hours, the President would break the tie.

Eurussia refutes this as there is no way the President could break the tie since the soul of this proposal is the 72 hours voting period. If there is a tie, in which you will never know until the 72 hour lapses, technically, a proposal hasn't passed. If HPS is saying that the President can break a tie after the 72 hour period, what if the President himself delays breaking the tie? The purpose of this proposal is definitely obsolete then.

And to remind the proponent, let us say, only 2 out of 7 members voted after the time lapses, and there is a tie. Assuming the President has broken it and made the proposal either passed or rejected, does this scenario mean that the 3 nations (including the tie breaking vote of the President) voted could pass a proposal?

Will the above scenario blatantly violate the more superior constitutional rule that a simple majority of ALL the members of the Security Council is necessary to pass a proposal into law?

Pretty much.

Eurussia, then, formally suggests HPS to simply rewrite the proposal into stating that all proposals must be voted within a 72 hour period or else automatically dismissed.